Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal orders fresh assessment due to lack of proper verification by CIT (A)</h1> <h3>ITO, Ward 18 (4) New Delhi Versus M/s Yadu Steels And Power Pvt. Ltd.</h3> ITO, Ward 18 (4) New Delhi Versus M/s Yadu Steels And Power Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:Appeal against deletion of addition of share application money - Failure to submit confirmations from parties - Non-compliance with statutory notices - Onus on assessee to prove identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions - Lack of proper verification by CIT(A) - Setting aside the issue for fresh adjudication.Analysis:Issue 1: Deletion of Addition of Share Application MoneyThe appeal was filed by the revenue against the deletion of the addition of share application money by the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. AO had disallowed the amount of Rs. 3,52,50,000 received as share application money by the assessee due to non-compliance with providing confirmations from the parties involved. The Ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition, stating that the assessee had submitted additional evidence such as share application forms and identity documents of shareholders, which were accepted without proper verification. The Ld. CIT (A) directed the Ld. AO to make necessary inquiries regarding the genuineness of the shareholders. However, it was observed that the Ld. AO did not conduct any such inquiries, and the Ld. CIT (A) failed to verify the documents filed by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT (A) had passed the order without proper verification of facts and reversed the decision, setting aside the issue for fresh adjudication.Issue 2: Failure to Submit Confirmations and Non-ComplianceThe Ld. AO issued notices to the directors of the assessee, requesting details of the alleged share application money received. However, there was no compliance from the assessee's side, leading to the Ld. AO passing an ex parte order. The Ld. AO made the addition of the share application money in the hands of the assessee as income from undisclosed sources due to the lack of explanation regarding the credit entries and non-compliance with statutory notices. The Tribunal noted that the onus is on the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. It was emphasized that both the assessee and the AO should adopt a reasonable approach in such cases.Issue 3: Lack of Proper Verification by CIT(A)The Tribunal highlighted that the Ld. CIT (A) did not conduct proper verification of the documents submitted by the assessee, including share application forms and identity proofs of shareholders. The Ld. CIT (A) accepted these documents without making necessary inquiries or issuing summons under Section 131. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT (A) failed to ascertain the nature of the transaction and deleted the addition without adequate verification, leading to the reversal of the decision.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by the revenue for statistical purposes and set aside the issue of the addition of share application money for fresh adjudication by the Ld. AO. The Tribunal directed the Ld. AO to conduct thorough inquiries based on the documents provided by the assessee and follow due process of law to decide the issue afresh.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found